The reason why his father claims a borrowing of money with a loan certificate prepared formally without his intention of a loan for consumption after the receipt of the funds acquired from his father is without merit (Dismissal)

(C) In light of the fact that a loan certificate submitted by the Plaintiff was formally prepared without the intent of a loan for consumption, and that the interest and principal on the loan certificate were not repaid, the gift tax was imposed on the loan money that is not a loan for consumption, and the original disposition is justifiable.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-71795 ( October 17, 2015)

New ○○ and 3

Head of the District Tax Office 2

oly 2015.17

1. The plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs shall bear the litigation costs.

The disposition of imposition stated in the separate disposition list that the Defendants filed against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are children of new ○○○. On November 20, 2009, the new ○○○ loaned KRW 6.9 billion from the Seoul Agricultural Cooperative on November 20, 2009, and on November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred each amount of KRW 850 million to the deposit account of the Plaintiff NewB among the above amounts to KRW 850 million, Plaintiff New AA, New CC, and NewD (hereinafter referred to as the “Partys”).

나. 원고들은 2009. 11. 23. 주식회사 ☆☆☆일☆(이하 '☆☆☆일☆'이라 한다)의 유상증자에 참여하여 원고 신BB은 28,000주, 나머지 원고들은 각 12,000주씩, 합계64,000주(이하 '이 사건 주식'이라 한다)를 취득하였다.

C. The Defendants: (a) deemed that the Plaintiffs received the donation of the amount equivalent to the acquisition value of the shares of this case from Plaintiff NewB840 million won [28 million won x issue value 30,000 won x issue value 300 million won x 300 million won x issue value 30,000 won x 30,000 won ] from Plaintiff NewB84,000; and (b) deemed that they received the donation of each of the remaining Plaintiffs, the Defendants issued the disposition of imposition on the Plaintiffs listed in the separate disposition of imposition (hereinafter

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 24, 2014, but the said appeal was dismissed on August 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3

Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) 원고들은 부친인 신○○로부터 금원을 차용하여 이 사건 주식을 취득한 것으로,사전에 금전차용증서를 작성하여 그 금전차용증서에 공증을 받았고, 이 사건 주식 취득자금이 신○○의 예금계좌에서 원고들의 예금계좌로 송금되었다가 다시 ☆☆☆일☆의 관련회사인 유한회사 ○○홀딩스 예금계좌로 송금되었는바, 원고들이 신○○로부터이 사건 주식 취득자금을 증여받았음을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 사실을 오인한 것으로 위법하다.

2) In addition, in rendering the instant disposition, the Defendants calculated the amount equivalent to the acquisition value of the instant shares (the amount of KRW 840 million in the Plaintiff NewBB, KRW 360 million in each of the remaining Plaintiffs) as the value of donated property. The said amount does not coincide with the amount borrowed from the new ○○○○ (the Plaintiffs KRW 850 million in the Plaintiff NewBB, KRW 8550 million in the form of money, KRW 50 million in each of the Plaintiffs in the form of money, KRW 50 million in each of the Plaintiff), and it is impossible to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 3 (Detailed Statement on Change of Stocks, etc.) in the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 3 (Detailed Statement on Change of Stocks, etc.) is deemed to have been acquired as KRW 300,00 in each of the shares of the Plaintiffs based on the above

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination as to the above 1) argument

1) Facts of recognition

A) On July 2013, 2013, at the time of the tax investigation of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, Plaintiff NewB appeared in the Seoul Regional Tax Office and signed a written confirmation confirming that 840 million won was increased by 00 million won from ○○○. New ○ signed the written confirmation confirming that the rest of the Plaintiffs received 360 million won from ○○○ as the acquisition fund of shares.

B) According to the money borrowed loan certificate written on November 23, 2009 between the Plaintiffs and new ○○ as of November 23, 2009 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), interest rate is 6% per annum. The repayment of principal and interest is a condition of equal repayment by November 23, 2012 and the repayment of principal and interest is a condition of equal repayment by November 23, 2012, and the payment of principal and interest shall lose the benefit of time in the event of delinquency for

C) In calculating the principal and interest to be paid monthly by the Plaintiffs to ○○ from November 23, 2009 to November 23, 2012 in accordance with the instant monetary loan certificate, it is KRW 25,858,674 per month in the case of Plaintiff NewB, and KRW 15,210,969 per month in the case of the rest of the Plaintiffs as indicated below.

D) The written request for a trial submitted by the Plaintiff NewB to the Tax Tribunal contains an indication that “NewB made the instant monetary loan certificate at will, and made the Plaintiff’s newB borrowed KRW 840 million from ○○○○.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (the plaintiff's evidence No. 7 was made by strong pressure, and thus the statement No. 7 cannot be trusted, but since no evidence exists to acknowledge it, the plaintiffs' above assertion is rejected)'s written statements and the purport of whole pleadings.

2) Circumstances acknowledged in addition to the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiffs did not pay the principal and interest on the loan certificate from the date of preparation of the loan certificate to the date of closing argument. Nevertheless, it appears that the Plaintiffs did not suffer any disadvantage due to the loss of interest during the period, and ii) the Plaintiffs did not submit the instant loan certificate until the time of filing an objection to the tax investigation and the disposition of Seoul Regional Tax Office; and (iii) the Plaintiff did not submit the instant loan certificate to the Seoul Regional Tax Office; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not borrow the instant loan certificate and did not receive any donation of the acquisition fund for the instant stocks (the Plaintiff did not inform the reasons). ③ New ○○ did not report global income tax (interest income) on the interest that the Plaintiffs could receive from the loan certificate of this case, and eventually, the instant loan certificate appears to have been formally prepared without the intent of a cash loan with the Plaintiffs and new ○○○. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Plaintiff received the instant loan from new ○○○.

D. Determination as to the argument

원고들이유상증자에 참여하여 이 사건 주식을 취득한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 을 제3, 7호증(원고들은 을 제3호증의 기재를 믿을 수 없다고 주장하나, 을 제3호증은 ☆☆☆일☆이 목포세무서장에게 제출한 자료로 특별히 그 신빙성을 부인할 만한 사정이 없으므로 원고들의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고들이 취득한 이 사건 주식의 발행가액이 1주당 30,000원인 사실을 인정할수 있다. 위 인정사실에 의하면 원고들이 이 사건 주식을 취득하기 위하여 신○○로부터 증여받은 금액은 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고 신BB의 경우 8억 4,000만 원(= 28,000주 × 30,000원)이고, 나머지 원고들의 경우 각 3억 6,000만 원(= 12,000주 × 30,000원)이라 할 것이므로, 피고들이 이 사건 주식의 발행가액이 30,000원임을 전제로 증여재산가액을 산정한 것은 적법하다. 따라서 원고들의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.